Posted on 10/05/2010 6:01:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
>>supposed shot from the grassy knoll would have had to magically pass through the first lady’s head.
>
>You mean like the ‘single bullet theory’ bullet that magically passed through Senator Connelly, changed directions several times, and then went through Kennedy’s head ?
Speaking of magic bullets, at about 6:58...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDBxlOfJnoQ
Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand why people think the single bullet theory is crap, and the whole “found on a gurney” thing is suspicious no matter what other evidence there is. That said...
Note that section and the stuff in the next one down about how the analyst found evidence of the bullet strike and Kennedy and Connally reacting in the pertinent frames of the Zapbruder film.
Asecond shooter on the knoll is impossible, a shot fired by Oswald that hit both men is possible, ergo...
I think Erik Scott was a good man with a troubled life, who would have been dead from prescription drug abuse before the age of 40 without detoxification. Since his girlfriend most likely was aiding his drug abuse and his father was in denial, his only chance for survival would have been intervention by the authorities, which was already in progress at the time he died.
>You also need to take into account the needless proliferation of police & prosecutors - far beyond the needs of the populace.
I do, but that’s another topic IMO; and [at least] tangentially connected to the proliferation of ‘regulations’ & felonies.
>The Founders would be entirely unfamiliar with the notion of more & more & more police & prosecutors are necessary, with an unlimited taxpayer-funded checkbook to draw upon for salaries, investigations, prosecutions & retirement pensions.
Ah, but this system allows for bureaucracy to be needed as in the upkeep/maintenance of criminal records. Consider this: if there were no “three strikes”-style policies, no upgrading of misdemeanors to felonies [esp with multiple offenses], and no extra-internment punishments (i.e. the dis-allowance of firearms from felons who have served their sentence) then what is the need for criminal records to be kept?
(ie if every infraction of the law was viewed, legally, as the same as the first infraction & the serving of the sentence “wiped the slate clean” insofar as the Justice system was concerned, then there wouldn’t be any need for ‘criminal records’ beyond the active-case/”wanted for...”-type.)
>One further thought - the catch-and-release mentality in our current legal system (once again, a mentality that the Founders would NOT comprehend) might be construed by a cynical critic as a thinly-veiled effort to keep business brisk...
That is one mentality that certainly is plausible.
There is another one [too], which is that the practice encourages the “limitation” of rights due to so many people being ‘on probation’ or ‘administrative holding of charges’ (as is common for traffic violations) or [as stated above] the barring of rights to ex-felons.
If it’s not intentional then the assault on the rights of freemen resultant from the practices should have been challenged years ago by the lawmakers.... though things like “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” seriously indicate that the lawmakers are more concerned with their own positions of power than the responsibility/accountability that such positions [should] demand.
>(time to test your sense of humor)
Appropriately warped...
Try this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2602095/posts?page=14#14
Was there a round in the chamber, or not? I know the LV Metro PD has been kind of busy digging up dirt on Erik for the last three months, so maybe they haven't had a chance to check the chamber of Erik's pistol to see if there was a round in it or not...
“Mosher complied with the laws of Nevada and his training based on the information he had.”
WRONG! Mosher ignored the most important evidence - WHAT HIS EYES SAW!
By every account, Scott was leaving quietly. Not one witness says Scott was acting in a threatening or hostile manner.
To go from “Is he the suspect?” to opening fire in <6 seconds, Mosher HAD to ignore the most important piece of evidence - what he saw: a man walking out of Costco, no gun in hand, no weaving around, no shouting, no panic among the customers - NOTHING to indicate he was dangerous.
SIX SECONDS before Mosher fired, he couldn’t even tell who was the suspect! And the physical evidence leaves no doubt that Scott had no intention of killing anyone - gun in holster, carried condition 1, hammer down.
So how did Mosher get from “No one stands out” to “I must shoot” in less than 6 seconds? Here is a hint - it wasn’t Scott. Scott didn’t have time. If you were walking out of a store feeling innocent and law abiding, and a cop shouted “Get down!”, would you be on your knees in 2 seconds?
If not, then a Nevada cop “compl[ying] with the laws of Nevada and his training based on the information he ha[s]” can shoot you dead. Justifiably. And as a number of LAPD officers have said before, they can say, “I thought he/she had a gun...”
Again, I haven’t gone back and tried to confirm the time line...but IF it is correct, then I doubt Scott ever got the gun in its holster pointed towards the cop. It takes me 2 seconds on a good day to get the holster off, and 2 seconds was all he had. Yes, I know there is witness testimony that he pointed a gun at the cop. I also know that most accident witnesses say they saw the plane in flames, even when there was no fire. Witnesses, like cops, sometimes see what they expect to see, and no one expects to see a cop shoot a man with a holstered gun - but Scott’s gun was found in the holster.
” I am at the point where seeing a cop does not make me feel safer anymore”
Somehow that saddens me.
Mike McDaniel’s The Erik Scott Case: Update 5 (The Future) (October 5, 2010) http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/306510.php
Looks like he came to the same conclusion I did. Glad to see it. I think there are three things the lawyers will hammer home in the civil case:
1 - Gun in holster, hammer down.
2 - 6 seconds from “Where is the suspect?” to shots fired.
3 - Any half sane person can come up with a better way of handling a situation like this, and the outcome would almost certainly have been different - hence liability.
No one ever asked if there was a round in the chamber. I never carry with a round in the chamber, for safety purposes. Why do you suppose the question never came up at the inquest? I would think that Metro would have been ALL OVER IT if there had been a round chambered.
You'll notice that Moonman62 doesn't want to talk about it. All he wants to talk about is how Erik pointed a gun at a cop. Fat lot of good pointing a gun at a cop will do you if you're not locked & loaded...
Especially if you have 6 seconds before the first police hollowpoint blows your heart apart.
There's going to be a LOT of unpleasant questions asked at the federal trial.
And the physical evidence leaves no doubt that Scott had no intention of killing anyone - gun in holster, carried condition 1, hammer down.
You won't give up with the 20/20 hindsight will you? Based on what Mosher knew, Scott was just as likely to take a bystander as a shield and start shooting if he was approached with your method of courageous restraint and politeness.
Again, I haven’t gone back and tried to confirm the time line...but IF it is correct, then I doubt Scott ever got the gun in its holster pointed towards the cop.
IF you ever confirm your time line, then I will be interested in your theories derived from it.
Yes, I know there is witness testimony that he pointed a gun at the cop. I also know that most accident witnesses say they saw the plane in flames, even when there was no fire.
There was conflicting witness testimony. However, after six days of testimony, the jury unanimously decided in less than two hours that the shooting was justified. I'll leave it to you to determine which witnesses they found the most credible.
Witnesses, like cops, sometimes see what they expect to see, and no one expects to see a cop shoot a man with a holstered gun - but Scott’s gun was found in the holster.
The holster and gun were found on the ground no longer clipped to Scott's rear waistband where he should have left them.
Was there a round in the chamber? Or has Las Vegas Metro PD been too busy for the last three months to find that out?
Most CCW people don't carry a round in the chamber because it's dangerous. Why don't you or Metro want to talk about that?
Erik Scott could have pointed a 90mm recoilless rifle at Mosher, but if it wasn't loaded, it was harmless.
Pretending that Erik Scott's gun was loaded is lying.
Quit pretending that Erik Scott's gun had a round in the chamber, unless you know for a fact that it did.
If his gun was NOT locked & loaded, then Mosher is guilty of manslaughter. If there was a round in the chamber, Metro would have been screaming it from the rooftops.
You and Metro are no better than the Clintonites. "It's just about sex" - never mind the perjury, obstruction & witness-tampering.
"It's just about Erik Scott pointing a gun at a police officer" - never mind that the gun probably didn't have a round in the chamber, meaning that it couldn't hurt anyone.
Me too.
What’s the matter, Moonman - Erik Scott’s unloaded gun got your tongue?
dang shark, you made me go there...8^}
.
LVPD needs to be disbanded, and all members permanently blackballed from any public or security employment.
Let the Sheriff take over.
.
dude, get some kneepads and a napkin...
> “Remember that the hearing only tells one side of the story.”
.
And remember one more thing:
Las Vegas is the organized crime capital of planet Earth.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.